Sexual Selection Is The Female Function

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... sorry ... I'm not actually asserting any of these as the cause of the denial you observe - I'm just trying to illuminate a number of places where the answer you seek could be hiding ... the first seems relatively straightforward; but the latter two demonstrate how obscure (and hard to find) the answer you seek might be (worse yet, maybe it's some combination of these!) ... as you eloquently stated: :brickwall: ...

paulhanke, Smile

Thanks for the input, I think probably it will have to remain a mystery, though there does seem to be a difference between working class views on the subject and the more profession element. I once post the problem on a site where a great many of the associates were professionals, there was not one person that had a problem with the said fact that sexual selection was the function of the female, after six months of responses not one stated that this is not so.:brickwall:

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Sexual selection is the female function,why is it not talked about in polite company,better still why is it denied with a passion,by a great many,I would say the majority of people.What purpose does the denial serve? Any insights would be appreciated.

I've always agreed with the premise here. Biologically we're very much indistinguishable from species where females are sought by the males (based on aspects of fecundity, mainly); the female chooses from her pick. Life goes on. Why this isn't more openly acknowledged (and extolled! as I think it should be) comes back two issues: 1) The psychological complexity of the human animal -and- 2) Inculcated Cultural and/or Religious mindsets that try to "remove" the animal, from Human Animal.

Psychologically: Development of intelligence (self-awareness, sentience, sapience) brings forth a species that modifies its own behavior. It's awareness of self and ego mitigates, exaggerates and suppresses natural inclinations based on intellectual or emotional aspects. I believe had we only our drives/instincts to guide us, and not intelligence, conscious will and emotions, the natural sexual dominance innate to the female would be more prevalent. By the way, I see what we are - in this way - as neither good nor bad, only that "it is".

Culture and Religion: Given our nature as social beings (cooperatives, whereas the one finds it exceedingly difficult to survive and thrive not in numbers) cultural views based on that culture's values, and religious taboos/mores play, also, a huge part in supressing (and even denying) the drives of the natural animal. This, too, is neither good nor bad but simply "is". I don't like it, but it strikes me as a natural permutation.

Another note here are economical and practical considerations - all these bring influences to bear on us that color our perceptions of what sexual is and what should take place. I've read a lot on the various matriarchies that various cultures (past and present) exercise, and it's always struck me as very 'natural' when females take their place as 'judges' in the selection process. We, too, judge, but that's a different side of the same coin.

Neat topic and great tickler.

0 Replies

@Scattered,

Khethil

Well I do not think it is an adaptation, more likely a psychological anomaly. I am aware that there is a new theory trying to breakthrough, called, "Shift Theory". I believe it challenges Dawinian theory on this. I cannot say that it has no credibility, but I suspect that the motivation to challenge Darwinian theory is political, perhaps this public workingclass denial of the sexual selection of the female is political also. Besides do we not require the truth to properly adapt to the society we are part of, does it not make for a rather schizophrenic dance of it this mating game.

This is more recent development with me, but rather than look for one cause as source of this reaction we should perhaps look at the different contexts in which this divergence of opinion emerges, this is more complex perhaps, but, more realistic don't you think?

0 Replies

@boagie,

Why "sexual selection" offends Christians?
I will explain.

1. Celibacy. The Vow of chastity.

Monks and Catholic priests have refused family. They speak to all peoples of World: there are values above than children or ancestors. There is God. Sex here not main thing. It is loneliness feat.

Sacred сelibacy carries out important social function: There are people who can't have children. There are people who have lost children. There are left men and women. Lonely against will. The Christianity protects these people, gives them hope (the priest (the Catholic) has voluntary lost posterity. Means also to the lonely person not so painfully to understand the hopelessness).

2. Darwin has proved theory. Now many people (especially unfortunate) in society became miserable. They any more don't believe priests. The celibacy feat is considered now (thanking "sexual selection") senseless, difficult and ridiculous. The priest any more authority, and the odd fellow. So also the lonely person - the odd fellow, the loser, object of sneers and cruelty.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie;2278 wrote:

Hi Y'all!,

Sexual selection is the female function,why is it not talked about in polite company,better still why is it denied with a passion,by a great many,I would say the majority of people.What purpose does the denial serve? Any insights would be appreciated.

Deny what? Women never had a choice. Women in pre-industrial times are nothing but another commodity to be traded. Our notion of a nuclear family bound by love is a fiction. Much of history, family is a vehicle for the transfer of wealth from generation to generation. Love is a delusion that people have.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;154779 wrote:

Deny what? Women never had a choice. Women in pre-industrial times are nothing but another commodity to be traded. Our notion of a nuclear family bound by love is a fiction. Much of history, family is a vehicle for the transfer of wealth from generation to generation. Love is a delusion that people have.

The theory of "sexual selection" is proved. Who denies it? Negation without proofs is silly emotions.

The family is creation for of children. Money is only means. But not family ultimate goal. The family purpose - children.

Why only women? When the man bought the slavegirl for sex, he SELECT ONE girl (beauty) of 20 - other 100 women. Unless it not sexual SELECTION?

1 Reply

@Marat phil,

Marat;154785 wrote:

The theory of "sexual selection" is proved. Who denies it? Negation without proofs is silly emotions.

The family is creation for of children. Money is only means. But not family ultimate goal. The family purpose - children.

Why only women? When the man bought the slavegirl for sex, he SELECT ONE girl (beauty) of 20 - other 100 women. Unless it not sexual SELECTION?

Where the hell did i deny there is sexual selection? Sexual selection is really in the hands of male. The more rich the male is, the more wife he can have, and the more descendant comes from him.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;154801 wrote:

Where the hell did i deny there is sexual selection? Sexual selection is really in the hands of male. The more rich the male is, the more wife he can have, and the more descendant comes from him.

In Third World countries (Population growth) - Rich men? At you materialistic sight at problem. Sexual selection exists, but its value is disproportionate is exaggerated.

2 Replies

@Marat phil,

Hey guys,

Sexual selection is a bit hard to refute. In most cases, I'd wager, both males and females choose with whom they do or do not procreate. This isn't absolute, since we still have both forced impregnation/sexual slavery and chosen/crafted couples by virtue of culture or tradition.

But where there is any choice in the matter, since males generally have a much higher drive to mate, I'd say females are still more often in the position of making that ultimate/final choice. Again, both make choices, it's simply by virtue of the disproportionate drives that mechanically, 'she' ends up with the ultimate say. I think its important to keep in mind that even in social structures (human) where marriages are arranged, she can still say 'no' (and often does). Even in the natural world of mammals, the female often makes that choice; even in primate harems/troops as well as the reptilian world.

I am curious about this, Marat,

Marat;154802 wrote:

... Sexual selection exists, but its value is disproportionate is exaggerated.

I think you may be right in some circles, but how would you say it is exaggerated? By whom or what?

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;154805 wrote:

I think you may be right in some circles, but how would you say it is exaggerated? By whom or what?

Thanks

Don't forget that the main postulate of Darwin this SURVIVAL. And it depends not only on pairing. In Europe since neolith there were illnesses. Died not weak or ugly creatures, and all (Indeans and the European illnesses). Those survived who casually it has appeared is unreceptive to virus. Casually. Glacial age. Wars. Wars destroyed the best genofund. Thirty-year war has destroyed more half of population of the German lands. And die strong and courageous. Wars formed races. Therefore sexual selection before the XXI-st century wasn't the serious factor.

1 Reply

@Marat phil,

Marat;154812 wrote:

Don't forget that the main postulate of Darwin this SURVIVAL. And it depends not only on pairing. In Europe since neolith there were illnesses. Died not weak or ugly creatures, and all (Indeans and the European illnesses). Those survived who casually it has appeared is unreceptive to virus. Casually. Glacial age. Wars. Wars destroyed the best genofund. Thirty-year war has destroyed more half of population of the German lands. And die strong and courageous. Wars formed races. Therefore sexual selection before the XXI-st century wasn't the serious factor.

Ah, I see; you're saying that sexual selection isn't the biggest factor in survival overall. Nothing wrong with that.

Wow it's tough to understand your verbiage; are you using a translator?

Thanks for your response - good topic.

0 Replies

@Marat phil,

Marat;154802 wrote:

In Third World countries (Population growth) - Rich men? At you materialistic sight at problem. Sexual selection exists, but its value is disproportionate is exaggerated.

You don ` t make sense at all.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

chad3006;2295 wrote:

It certainly seems true for humans. However, it may very well be more complex than it seems on the surface. There are cases when males make sexual selection, sometimes it's called rape. It hasn't been that many years ago that women would have not been able to speak of it, thus an aspect of human sexual selection would have remained "invisible." History is full of loveless marriages as well. Women may have made the decision to accept the proposal, however, there were social and economic factors which may have dictated that choice. Women's rights are relatively new to our culture, so it could be we are currently in a period of adjustment. Anyway....just some rough thoughts I had on the topic.

Here's an interesting link (on many levels) about bonobos who are genetically just as closely related to humans as chimpanzees, however, bonobos are matriarchal, while chimp society revolves around the typical dominant male model.

Not too sure that they are matriarchal. There seems to be uncertainty about that.

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie;2278 wrote:

Hi Y'all!,

Sexual selection is the female function,why is it not talked about in polite company,better still why is it denied with a passion,by a great many,I would say the majority of people.What purpose does the denial serve? Any insights would be appreciated.

Men do a lot of selecting too. Men like young women. Blonde hair used to be a sign of youth and turned darker with age. Now we have lots of pretty permanently blonde girls running around. It's called neoteny.

1 Reply

@Marat phil,

Marat;154775 wrote:

Why "sexual selection" offends Christians?
I will explain.

1. Celibacy. The Vow of chastity.

Monks and Catholic priests have refused family. They speak to all peoples of World: there are values above than children or ancestors. There is God. Sex here not main thing. It is loneliness feat.

Sacred сelibacy carries out important social function: There are people who can't have children. There are people who have lost children. There are left men and women. Lonely against will. The Christianity protects these people, gives them hope (the priest (the Catholic) has voluntary lost posterity. Means also to the lonely person not so painfully to understand the hopelessness).

2. Darwin has proved theory. Now many people (especially unfortunate) in society became miserable. They any more don't believe priests. The celibacy feat is considered now (thanking "sexual selection") senseless, difficult and ridiculous. The priest any more authority, and the odd fellow. So also the lonely person - the odd fellow, the loser, object of sneers and cruelty.

To be celibate is to be unmarried. Priests take a vow of chastity, not celibacy. Of course, it is assumed......But it does not always work out that way, as we know only too well.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;154830 wrote:

Men do a lot of selecting too. Men like young women. Blonde hair used to be a sign of youth and turned darker with age. Now we have lots of pretty permanently blonde girls running around. It's called neoteny.

Men select for all sorts of things. For a review of such things see David M. Buss Evolutionary Psychology. An often mentioned selected for item is the waist-hip ratio. Not surprisingly, research indicates that this ratio correlates with fertility in women. So it may be an evolved trait that men select for it.

Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

Sexual Selection Is The Female Function

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know